DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[h_hurricane]

Has any top 10 player in this thread been discussed as much as Barrington so far ? The guy is an absolute legend. His name was coming up in every other post before his ranking was published lol.

 

[Coronis]

Quality points update.

Barrington 825
Hutton 813
Sutcliffe 811
Richards 794
Weekes 794
Hammond 787
Pollock 787
Kohli 780
Walcott 768
Headley 762
Nourse 762

 

[Logan]

Has any top 10 player in this thread been discussed as much as Barrington so far ? The guy is an absolute legend. His name was coming up in every other post before his ranking was published lol.

Because I said his record was more complete than Sobers’ record and we had a huge debate about it.

 

[Burgey]

Because I wanted him to finish above Sobers so the latter couldn't be compared with St Sachin, and we had a huge debate about it.

Yeah.

 

[jimmy101]

One thing I read about the Barrington gap is that The Oval tended to be a dog track during the 1950's with Lock, Laker and Bedser in their primes, so wasn't easy for batting.

Didn't stop Peter May from averaging 51 with the bat during the same era.

 

[ataraxia]

Didn't stop Peter May from averaging 51 with the bat during the same era.

Exactly what I was about to say. The odds after the time between posts?

 

[jimmy101]

Exactly what I was about to say. The odds after the time between posts?

Hurry up & post in the grand slam draft thread.

 

[ankitj]

Quality points update.

Barrington 825
Hutton 813
Sutcliffe 811
Richards 794
Weekes 794
Hammond 787
Pollock 787
Kohli 780
Walcott 768
Headley 762
Nourse 762

Aussies always get cheap runs

 

[OverratedSanity]

Aussies always get cheap runs

Tbf, Smith and Bradman are going to smash those numbers.

 

[Logan]

Tbf, Smith and Bradman are going to smash those numbers.

Waiting to see the difference between Bradman and the second best. Except for overall runs, will Bradman not be the best in any category?

 

[Burgey]

Aussies always get cheap runs

It's because the rest of the world lacks quality...

 

[AndrewB]

One thing I read about the Barrington gap is that The Oval tended to be a dog track during the 1950's with Lock, Laker and Bedser in their primes, so wasn't easy for batting.

Some of the top overall bowling averages for English first-class cricket in the 1950s (Surrey bowlers in bold):
Statham 1027 @ 15.41
Lock 1441 @ 15.50
Appleyard 696 @ 16.10
Loader 821 @ 16.71
Laker 1305 @ 16.79
Jackson 1122 @ 17.13
Tattersall 1256 @ 17.38
Gladwin 1127 @ 17.98
Bedser 1282 @ 18.04

bearing in mind that the Surrey players' (and Statham's) averages will have been increased more than the others by playing in Test matches.
They did have four of the best bowlers in the country, but it does back up the suggestion that the Oval wasn't fun for batting, so it's not surprising that people were great admirers of May for being top of the overall batting averages for the 1950s (only Hutton was close).

Seasonal batting averages for May and Barrington:
1950: May 34
1951: May 69
1952: May 62
1953: May 51, Barrington 18
1954: May 50, Barrington 40
1955: May 51, Barrington 33
1956: May 38, Barrington 30
1957: May 62, Barrington 39
1958: May 64, Barrington 32
1959: May 47, Barrington 54

Again, even though Barrington went on to great success in the 1960s (whereas May retired from Tests in 1961) it's not surprising that their contemporaries remembered May towering over him in the mid 50s. (Note that despite May being a 50s star and Barrington far more so in the 60s, they were born within a year of each other).

 

[mr_mister]

Some of the top overall bowling averages for English first-class cricket in the 1950s (Surrey bowlers in bold):
Statham 1027 @ 15.41
Lock 1441 @ 15.50
Appleyard 696 @ 16.10
Loader 821 @ 16.71
Laker 1305 @ 16.79
Jackson 1122 @ 17.13
Tattersall 1256 @ 17.38
Gladwin 1127 @ 17.98
Bedser 1282 @ 18.04

bearing in mind that the Surrey players' (and Statham's) averages will have been increased more than the others by playing in Test matches.
They did have four of the best bowlers in the country, but it does back up the suggestion that the Oval wasn't fun for batting, so it's not surprising that people were great admirers of May for being top of the overall batting averages for the 1950s (only Hutton was close).

Seasonal batting averages for May and Barrington:
1950: May 34
1951: May 69
1952: May 62
1953: May 51, Barrington 18
1954: May 50, Barrington 40
1955: May 51, Barrington 33
1956: May 38, Barrington 30
1957: May 62, Barrington 39
1958: May 64, Barrington 32
1959: May 47, Barrington 54

Again, even though Barrington went on to great success in the 1960s (whereas May retired from Tests in 1961) it's not surprising that their contemporaries remembered May towering over him in the mid 50s. (Note that despite May being a 50s star and Barrington far more so in the 60s, they were born within a year of each other).

I think you've cracked it wide open.

Barrington is a fraud, the voges of the top 10. Dare I say, he was only an ATVG

 

[jimmy101]

I wouldn't go as far to say Barrington was a fraud, but it is pretty hilarious that, when used properly, statistics of all things can be used to paint a more accurate picture of him. Fancy thinking he's a lock for an ATG Eng XI though.

 

[ataraxia]

I wouldn't go as far to say Barrington was a fraud, but it is pretty hilarious that, when used properly, statistics of all things can be used to paint a more accurate picture of him. Fancy thinking he's a lock for an ATG Eng XI though.

He's more of a Tony Lock.

 

[ankitj]

I wouldn't go as far to say Barrington was a fraud, but it is pretty hilarious that, when used properly, statistics of all things can be used to paint a more accurate picture of him. Fancy thinking he's a lock for an ATG Eng XI though.

I don't know how this has proved anything. Barrington's greatness started 1959 onwards and he went on to achieve what May didn't. Also don't know these statistics from only a part of his career and in domestic cricket paint more accurate picture than DoG's analysis.

 

[mr_mister]

I don't know how this has proved anything. Barrington's greatness started 1959 onwards and he went on to achieve what May didn't. Also don't know these statistics from only a part of his career and in domestic cricket paint more accurate picture than DoG's analysis.

1960s was pretty light on ATG bowlers compared to the 50s and 70s

I think it proves a teeny bit. We don't rate Hayden that much for slaughtering popgun 2000s attacks right? Despite an insane century ratio

 

[Days of Grace]

1960s was pretty light on ATG bowlers compared to the 50s and 70s

I think it proves a teeny bit. We don't rate Hayden that much for slaughtering popgun 2000s attacks right? Despite an insane century ratio

You're talking about Hayden in test cricket, whereas you were discrediting Barrington because of his FC record. In the end, this is a test cricket analysis. If a batsman averaged 70 in tests and 20 in FC cricket then he would still be one of the greatest test cricketers who ever lived.

 

[mr_mister]

You're talking about Hayden in test cricket, whereas you were discrediting Barrington because of his FC record. In the end, this is a test cricket analysis. If a batsman averaged 70 in tests and 20 in FC cricket then he would still be one of the greatest test cricketers who ever lived.

Close, but not quite

You see it was Andrew's post that made me realise that the '60s were pretty barren for bowling attacks. A few legends retired in the early part of the decade then it was cash in time for bats, except for the Windies but more on that later.

He averaged a lot against an Australian attack nearly devoid of greats sans Benaud and Davidson in the twilight of their career. And after Davidson retired in '63 he really went to town, getting a 256 against us in '64 when Bobby Simpson bowled 19 overs in an innings and our opening bowlers and first change ups were the esteemed combination of McKenzie/Corley/Hawke

He averaged a bucketload against NZ, Pakistan and India. Surely other than India there wasnt much bowling threat from those countries in the '60s

And against the best bowling side of his era, the Gibbs/Hall et all lead West Indies, his career average was 34

The county average of 39 is just the icing on the cake for me evidence wise

A first rate destroyer of second rate bowling.

 

[Days of Grace]

No.7

Sachin Tendulkar (India) 883

Quality Points: 759
Career Points: 124

Career/Runs: 1989-2013, 15921 (rank 1)

Overall average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 50.59 53.78 45.52 48.39 50.78 53.96 (rank 19)
50 Innings Peak Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (1997-2001): 65.19 58.67 56.65 (rank 19)
Non-Home Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 51.50 46.52 51.40 (rank 12)
Quality Opposition Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 46.39 42.58 51.68 (rank 46)

If he had retired from all cricket at the end of the 2011 World Cup, Sachin Tendulkar would have finished 4th in this list with 898 points, a ranking more befitting of the great batsman. That he continued to play on with ever diminishing returns either shows his innate love for the game which he couldn't leave; a mistaken belief in his own ability to regain his form despite all evidence to the contrary; or even worse, a selfish streak that compelled him to put his records in front of his own team and the ambitions of younger, more capable batsman. He finishes outside the top 10 in all the quality measurements are that ultimately costs him. That he still makes the top 10 is due to his career points, maintaining an average of over 50 despite playing for 24 years. And that is the most compelling argument for Tendulkar being higher up in the rankings: no other batsman played so much test cricket for so long whilst still maintaining an outstanding overall record.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zXvl88i4Hw